Hierome S. Hieron epist ad Ctesiph Hoc testimonium sub nomine pietatis novâ argumentatione deludunt aiunt enim ad comparationem Dei nullum esse Perfectum Perfectly righteous they might be according to that required in the Law not so in comparison to the Essentiall righteousness of God Hear Hieroms answer quasi hoc scriptura dixerit as who say this Scripture affirmed so much No saith Hierom but when it saith None shall be justified in thy sight hoc intelligi vult quòd etiam qui hominibus sancti videntur Dei scientiae atque notitiae nequaquam Sancti sunt Homo enim videt in facie Deus autem in corde That is This is the meaning That even they that seem to men Holy to Gods knowledge are not so For man looks on the face God on the heart One reason more I propound against their conclusion and so proceed The Righteousness whereby a man stands just before God according to the Law must be for the matter Right for the measure Pure for continuance Firm The terms are Bernards It must be Recta according to Rule Pura Bernard de verb. Esa ser 4. free from stain Firma without wavering or interruption He seems in fit terms to express the Apostle citing that testimony of Moses Gal. 3.10 and certainly if our Righteousness fail in any of these by sentence of the Law we are under the Curse The assumption let us hear out of Bernard Nostra si qua est humilis justitia recta forsitan est sed non pura nisi forte meliores nos esse credimus quà m patres nostros qui non minùs veraciter quà m humiliter aiebant omnis justitia nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae mulieris quomodo enim pura justitia ubi adhuc non potest culpa deesse Ours 1. no better then our Fathers 2. Not free from fault therefore not pure or perfect And I wonder much how Papists sticking so close to their distinction of first and second justification can maintain the perfection of inherent righteousness For is there a second justification whereby we are made more righteous it is apparent therefore that inherent righteousness is never perfected in this life Perfectio viae Patriae It is idle when they distinguish perfection into that of the Way and the other of the Countrey For if by it we are justified in via according to the Law we must by it also be perfected in via inasmuch as no righteousness but perfect is approved by the Law I conclude therefore That the righteousness whereby we stand just according to the Law is not inherent righteousness Lastly If the righteousness whereby we are thus just stand in the habits of faith hope charity patience meekness c. How is it that the Lord when he justifies an ungodly man believing is said to count his faith to righteousness vers 3 4. perhaps because that is our righteousness Ex parte Apage Then when Paul concludes Abraham not to have been justified by works because he was justified by faith his meaning is this Abraham was justified by faith in some part ergò by works in no part How easie were it to denie his consequence Thus though in part of Faith yet he must be in part also of Works and so the Argument follows not And again The state of the question so largely disputed in this Epistle betwixt faith and works must be this Whether we be justified in part of Faith But these are absurd 2. If therefore faith be counted our righteousness because it is so In part Why I wonder Faith more then Chariey or Hope c. Why saith the Apostle so oft Faith is counted to Righteousness never so of Charitie perhaps Denominatio fit ex parte potiori Apage I dare say by their notes 1 Cor. 13. they will never abase Charity so farre as to give Faith the preheminence in this point of justification Perhaps now it will be exspected that I should answer their objections in this point but that hath been already in a great part done ad cap. 3. and besides the grounds now laid afford answer sufficient Proceed we therefore to the next explication God justifies the ungodly that is makes him righteous by imputing righteousness and if the question be What righteousness The Righteousness of Christ whether of his life or death it is not so pertinent here to enquire For we are now onely to dispute whether imputation be the means whereby we are made just in the sight of God and this also will fitliest be handled in the next verse thither therefore I refer it Onely it shall not be amiss to see upon what reason our Divines thus interpret the word of justifying by making righteous That acception of the word in Scripture being so rare that scarce in any other place it is found Their reason is this because the word when it is taken to acquit can in no wise fit this place because the Lord professeth so often He will not justifie the wicked in this sense so as to acquit him or hold him righteous whiles he continues wicked It should seem therefore that when Paul saith he justifieth the ungodly his meaning is He makes him righteous that he may acquit him But what if that sentence of Moses be understood with the exception of the Gospel Except he repent and believe the Gospel Surely though the Lord profess He will not clear the the wicked Exod. 34.7 that are impenitently such yet we know he testifieth in the same place that he will forgive transgression iniquity and sinne to the penitent and believing The last thus God justifieth the ungodly Cajetan by remitting his sins or in that that he forgiveth him his sinnes But Is this true doth God forgive the sins of the ungodly Answ Though not to an ungodly man continuing in his ungod liness yet to an ungodly man that ceaseth to be ungodly Isa 1.18 c. as they all do that believe in Christ for faith purifieth the heart not onely from the guilt but also from the power and practice of ungodliness Act. 15.9 Obiect But so doing God iustifies not the ungodly but the righteous Answ Distingue tempora concordabunt Scripturae No man saith that in the instant of iustification a man is in that sense ungodly but yet inasmuch as before faith he was ungodly it s no absurd speech to say That in remitting the sins of a believer he forgives the sins of the ungodly or thus He iustifieth him that is ungodly by Nature though when he iustifieth him he be altered by Grace Matthew the Apostle is called Matthew the Publican Matth. 10.3 not for that he was so then but because he had been a Publican Why not then the believer ungodly especially when as there are reliques of ungodliness sticking even after justisication Vse Now brethren how sweet is the comfort of this meditation that God who in his wrath is a * Hebr. 12.29 consuming fire
word Father then to the verb found And thus read Abraham our father concerning the flesh but methinks the trajection is too harsh and besides the conclusion shall want one principall term that best serves to express the things in hand and therefore I rather refer it to the verb and thus read Abraham found not by the flesh or as pertaining to the flesh According to the flesh That is saith Ambrose S. Ambrosius ad loc by his Circumcision fittingly to what we may suppose the Apostle to preoccupate and yet in as much as ye count Circumcision is a work he affirms it as well of morall works as of circumcision Say others as Cajetan by flesh that is Cajetan ad loc by righteousness which stands in works and are done by the flesh that is by the body Others as Theodoret by his own strength Theodoret ad loc Illyric in clavi Zanch. de tribus Elohim lib. 3. cap. 1. and good vvorks done thereby Generally I thus conceive it that Abraham obtained not righteousness by any work Ceremonicall Morall or whatsoever can be imagined to assail to righteousness except faith in Christ so finde I the use of the word in the same case Phil. 3.3 4 5 6 9. Where under this name of flesh comes circumcision our own righteousness which is by the Law or whatsoever is or may be opposed to that righteousness which is by the faith of Christ The whole explination amounts to this summe Abraham obtained not righteousness by any his own works See we the confirmation The argument is taken from an inconvenience issuing out of that supposition If Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory But he hath not any thing whereof to glory at least with God Ergo he was not justified by works Let us see what our adversaries have to say against this full argument of the Apostle For ground of their answer they attempt an inversion of the Apostles syllogisme and thus conceive him to reason Sasbout ad loc If Abraham were justified by works then had he no glory or boasting with God he might indeed by that means procure the commendation of a man excellently righteous but with men only not with God but Abraham had cause of glorying and boasting with God Ergo was not justified by works This cross frame of the argument Augustin in prefat ad Psal 31. Ambros ad loc I could not without indignation read were it not that it hath great Authors to give it countenance for Reverence to them let us afford it tryall First then consider that the Apostle in this argument hath apparent respect to that ground laid down Rom. 3.27 That is that we are to be justified by such a mean as whereby boasting may be excluded according to which ground he here concludes That Abraham was not justified by works for if that were true then had he cause of boasting Is it not now too grosse blindness so to conceive the Apostle as if he would give Abraham cause of boasting Secondly besides this the proposition thus conceived is apparently false For if Abraham were justfied by works then sure he had cause of boasting even before God for what greater cause of glorying even before God then this That he hath wrought works to his justification and may therefore say he is not beholden to God for his greatest blessing justification as having purchased it by his own works of obedience see Rom. 3.27 Thirdly add hereunto that the assumption is apparently false for Abraham if the Apostle could judg had no cause of boasting with God his justification being as ours meerly of grace through faith in Christ Jesus leave we therefore that dream and see whether their other answers have more waight Say some Catholiques we must here understand observation of Legall Ceremonies as Circumcision Sabbaths New-Moons c. Not works of the Law Morall Answ To this idle exception see my Annotation in Rom. 3. But bring we this distinction into the Apostles argument and see whether boasting be excluded If Abraham were justified by works ceremoniall then had he cause of boasting belike not so if by works morall and how I wonder do works Ceremoniall give greater cause of boasting then works Morall is their dignity now greater then works of Morall obedience Fidem vestram Papistae Behold to obey is better then sacrifice and to hearken then the fat of rams 1 Sam. 15.22 I will have mercy and not sacrifice Hos 6.6 Mat. 9.13 sexcenta hujusmodi Bellarm. de Iustific lib. 1. cap. 19. blush at such idle evasions which your own Bellarmine willingly disclayms and confutes by Fathers Besides this according to this answer boasting is only in some part taken from Abraham namely in respect of his observance of Ceremonialls for Morall obedience is still left him for matter of boasting but boasting on any pretence is excluded in Pauls intention Ergo. Hear Hierome Ex operibus legis Hierom ad Ctesiphont Adv. Pelag. ultramed non justificabitur om nis Caro quod nè de Lege Moysis tantùm dictum putes non de omnibus mandatis quae uno legis nomine continentur idem Apostolus scribit dicens consentio Legi Dei c. iterum scimus quòd Lex spiritualis est c. We know saith Paul that the Law is spirituall Rom. 7.14 What Law I wonder if not that Morall Let us see yet whether other playsters will salve the sore Bellarm. qua supra works of Abraham are of two sorts some Praecedentia fidem going before faith some Facta per fidem done by faith the Apostle understands works done before faith and regeneration not those done in and by faith Let us bring this into the argument If Abraham were justified by works done without faith by the meer power of natural free will then had he cause of boasting not so if by works done in faith Answ And why not I marvail when works done by grace according to their opinion are done partly by strength-naturall of free-will so much then as free-will helped in the doing so much cause of boasting Abraham had of himself But Abraham had no cause of boasting c. 2. What if it be apparent that the Apostle speaks even of works done by Abraham now believing and regenerate then methinks these works must also be included in the Apostles intention Certainly if we consider the testimony alledged out of Gen. 15. in the next verse to prove that Abraham was not justified by works it will easily appear that Abraham was long before this regenerate and believing and had many works of faith whereas yet the testimony of righteousness is given him not for working but for believing It was a work of faith that Abraham did in following the Lords call out of his countrey Heb. 11.8 Other works of piety and love see Gen. 12.8 13.8 9. 14 16 20 c. Yet not these works done in faith but faith
niti pro viribus oporteret Object 3. By this means we shall be denominated just of a Justice without us as if a man should be wise by wisdome of another Answ Though that in Physicks and morall Philosophy be absurd yet in Divinitie it is no absurditie Object 4. Then shall we be as just as Christ Ans That follows not for Christ besides the Justice he had by obedience to the Law had also Divine justice as second Person of the Trinity 2. Yea even in Legal Justice a preheminence there is left unto Christ because he had it by his own performance we have it onely by imputation And what great absurdity is it to say save onely that the comparison is somewhat odious that we have not lesse Legal justice then Christ had whiles it is acknowledged we have it not as Christ had it by our own performance but by imputation and as I may say aestimativè because it is given us to be ours Obiect 5. Justification stands in restoring what in Adam we lost Now in Adam we lost not imputed righteousness Ergò Answ To let pass that description of Justification Ad minorem We lost righteousness though not the impatation thereof quà Justice though not quà imputata and he doth ill confound the thing with the manner of applying and hear a like reason Justification stands in restoring what we lost in Adam now in Adam we lost not remission of sins Ergò Hear Bernard Si unus pro omnibus mortuus est ergò Bernard Epist ad Innocent 190. omnes mortui funt ut videlicet satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur sicut omnium peccata Vnus ille portavit mox Justum me dixerim sed illius justisiâ quaenam ipsa Finis Legis Christus adjustitiam omni credenti Denique qui factus est nobis inquit iustitia à Deo Patre quae ergò mihi iustitia facta est mea non est Si mea traducta culpa cur non mea indulta iustitia sanè mihi tutior donata quà m innata c. Bellarmine himself thus Dicitur Christus iustitia nostra quoniam satis fecit Patri pro nobis eam satisfactionem ità nobis donat communicat cùm nos iustificat ut nostra satisfactio iustitia dici possit Nam etiamsi per iustitiam nobis inhaerentem verè insti nominemur simus tamen non per eam satisfacimus Deo proculpis nostris poenâ aeternâ c. Et hoc modo non esset absurdum si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi iustitiam merita cùm nobis donentur applicentur ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus c. VERS 7 8. There followeth in these verses proof of the Minor in the former syllogisme David appropriates blessedness to the man that hath righteousness imputed without works for he appropriates it to him whose sinns are remitted Cajetane Paraeus Piscator How follows the argument Some thus conceive it The Apostle say they thus collects the argument from David because in this speech of David there is no mention made of any of our works but onely of Gods actions in remitting covering not imputing sinne some gather it from equipollence of the phrases for it is all one not to impute sin and to impute righteousness because that he that by not imputation of sin is made non peccator is thereby made iustus there being no medium betwixt a non-sinner and a righteous man betwixt absence of all sin and having of righteousness Against that opinion I mean not to dispute yet I would have the Reader remember that betwixt imputation of Christs righteousness and remitting of sins a difference there must needs be such I mean as is betwixt the cause and the effect the thing destinied to the end and the end it self for remission of sins presupposeth imputation of righteousness and he that hath his sins remitted hath first Christs righteousness imputed that he may have sins forgiven May I have leave to interpose my sentence What if the consecution stand thus The iustified man by Davids opinion hath quá talis remission of sins therefore he hath imputation of righteousness without works forasmuch as where sins are remitted there can be no iustice but imputative every transgression of the Law depriving of that iustice which stands in works forasmuch as the Law to righteousness requires observance of every particular duty therein prescribed abstinence from every particular sin therein forbidden sith therefore Whosoever is iustified hath sinnes remitted it follows that his blessedness ariseth from imputation of righteousness without works Judicent Docti The coherence we see Let us now view the sense of the words What difference may some say betwixt remitting covering and not imputing sinn Answ Cajetane thus conceives a difference In sinne we are to consider three things 1. The offence and displeasure of God 2. The turpitude it leaves either in the action or person 3. The punishment Now sin is in respect of the offence remitted in respect of the turpitude covered in respect of the punishment not imputed such like niceties many I could recite out of interpreters But it may be it is true that Ambrose hath Remittere tegere non imputare Ambrose ad loc una ratio unus est sensus and again Vnius significationis surt verba quia cùm tegit remittit cùm remittit non imputat And the heap of words serves onely to amplifie the grace of God in this blessing yet Cajetane errs not much in his explanation The things here to be treated are First Rimission of sins wherein it consisteth What this remission of sins is which David so much magnifies as that he pronounceth him blessed that is partaker of it To this Papists make this answer True remission of sins is not only the removall of Gods displeasure and the absolving of us from the guilt and punishment of them but an utter abolishment of them in respect of being Consil Trident seff 5. Bellarm. de sacrament baptism lib. 1. cap. 3. de justific lib. 2. cap. 7. and 9. Bellarm. in Psal 32. In Baptismate tollitur totum id quod veram propriam rationem peccati habet As Bellarmine speaking of the communicating of this blessing in Baptisme likewise defines Baptismo reipsâ tolli omnia peccata it a ut non solum non imputetur sed nec sit quod imputari posset ad culpam And generally thus hold they of remission of sins that it is the abolishment of them in respect of being And what is it to have sins covered Dicuntur peccata tegi hoc loco non quod sint non videantur sed quòd abolita sint eorum loco justitia successerit What the not imputing peccatum non imputari non significat peccatum manere sed non puniri sed significat nihil esse in homine justificato quod in peccatum reputari possit That we
proportion to us that is the fulfilling of the whole Law Gal. 5.3 our Saviour to such a boaster asking What he must do to inherit salvation suits answer to his proud humour Thou knowest the Commandments if doing be the means thou seekest to inherit by Keep the Commandments this do if thou wilt needs be doing and thou shalt live fail in the least apex the Curse is upon thee Gal 3.10 Now dares any arrogate power of fulfilling the Law it is strange yet what will not Popish pride assume Anathema to them saith the Trent Council whosoever shall say Dei praecepta homini etiam justificato sub gratia constituto esse ad observandum impossibilia of that question hereafter 2. Add unto this that other reason of the Apostle Christ becomes of no effect to such as by the Law seek to be justified or saved Gal. 5.4 3. They are fallen from Grace not which they had but which they might have had had they not renounced it by cleaving to their works Shal I need now to exhort in the Apostles terms Gal. 1.6 to hold Anathema all such as teach us by works to seek salvation they deprive us of the promised salvation exclude from fellowship in Christs merits the sole pillar of hope deprive us of Gods grace which alone is made the fountain of salvation I say not but other errors in the foundation obstinately holden deprive of salvation I say not but all heresies in their kind are so many blasphemies against God Neither blame I the rigour of Magistrates that with extraordinary severity labour to bring Hereticks and their heresies into ashes But surely an errour more pernicious to the souls of Gods people more derogatory to the glory of Gods grace and the validity of Christs merits I know none then this of Justitiaries and can but wonder How the severity of Laws against Popish Seminaries hath gotten relaxation that it should now no longer be holden Capitall so dangerously to seduce Gods people to evacuate the virtue of Christs death and to plunge so many souls bought with the precious bloud of Christ into eternal perdition Amongst Jews no recompense might be taken for bloud but the bloud of the slayer the bloud of souls how cries it lowder then the bloud of Abel And yet the Murtherer hath benefit of sanctuary More I add not save this onely He loves not his own salvation that hates not the enemies of the grace of God VERS 15. Proceed we in the Text Because the law worketh wratht for where no Law is there is no transgression The Scope THis verse tends to confirmation of the Apostles Consequence If they which are of the Law be Heirs then is the promise of none effect that is salvation promised can never be obtained How follows the argument The Apostle shews us by sending us to consider the effect or work of the Law such as it hath in all men since the fall The Law causeth wrath Ergò it frustrates the promise to all that cleave thereto for justification And this Antecedent hath proof from another effect of the Law betwixt which and wrath the connexion is inseparable to wit transgression it causeth transgression Ergò wrath This the context Sense For the sense view we a little the particulars they are principally two 1. The effect of the Law 2. The manner how it produceth his effect The effect of the Law is wrath whether Gods or mans Man 's saith Sasbout alledging to that purpose the judgement of Augustin neither dissent some of our own Divines Illyricus And if any ask How They answer by urging things upon the conscience as duties from which our vitious nature is most abhorrent as also by shewing how odious all a mans best actions yea his whole nature is and adjudging him to hel for his sins against those acts of the Law how doth mans vitious and proud nature storm that not without cause have learned interpreters thus expounded But fitlier to the Apostles purpose it is expounded of the wrath of God that is of the punishments which for transgression God is in his wrath ready to execute Now if any demand How the Law should have this effect Not of it self as if it were originally destined to subject man to punishment but by accident and occasionally onely in respect of our disobedience which sith it is by means of corrupt nature inevitable as inevitably doth the Law adjudge us to punishment as our vitious nature forceth us to rebellion This is the sense of the first clause It also hath its proof The Law causeth wrath for it causeth trangression betwixt which and Gods wrath the connexion is inseparable How we shall hear by and by if we shall first view the manner of the Apostles reasoning It is thus as most conceive A contrario sensu Where is no Law there is no transgression therefore where the Law is there is transgression But what if we conceive the Apostle to reason à signis Where is no Law there is no transgression an apparent signe that is that by means of the Law transgression followeth take away the Law there is no transgression therefore apparent that by putting the Law we put transgression See we how how comes it that the Law draws with it so unavoidably transgression sith it forbids and threatens disobedience enjoyns and crowns obedience Answ Not of it self but by accident through the corruption of nature ut suprâ In man corrupted the Law hath a double advantage to further transgression 1. Because by it corruption is provoked to be the more sinfull as in men unregenerate Rom. 7.5 13. 2. Through impotencie and weakness that remains in nature even reformed to perform that obedience which the Law requires in that manner it requires it Rom. 8.3 Some other explanations might be annexed as this Every sin is therefore sin because it violates some Law take away all Law thou takest away all sin for sin essentially presupposeth some prescription of Law violated Had not God by his Commandment forbidden Adam the eating of the fruit it had been no sin in him to eat it This is a truth but not all tâ—â— Apostle here intends whose purpose is to shew not sâ— much the necessity of a Law to the being of sin as the necessary sequel and exsistence of sin in man since the fall by occasion of the Law Observ The point then observable is this That the law is so far from restoring us to Gods favour that it occasioneth his wrath so far from justifying that it condemns so far from being means of righteousness that it occasioneth transgression Hence called the Ministry of condemnation and death 2 Cor. 3.7 and the very strength and vigour of sin 1 Cor. 15 56. That not without cause said Luther though therefore traduced by Papists the law alwayes accuseth terrifieth condemneth The severall branches will be evident if we shall clear the last only and shew how inevitably it draws after it transgression in
was imputed to righteousness True saith Bellarmine Abraham was now regenerate and had done many good works of faith and yet the Apostle when he saith he was justified by faith and not by works rejects not his works done in faith from power of justifing but those only which he might have done not of faith For even they who have faith work sometimes not of faith as when they sin or do works meerly Morall without relation to God In a word the Apostle speaketh conditionally and according to their opinion which ascribed righteousness to their own strength Answ Now what is to be willfully blind if this be not was it ever heard of that a man should be justified by works not which he had done but which he might have done or think we the Saints of God to whom he wrought or the Iews that perhaps disturbed them were ever so shameless as to ascribe justice to works finfull or meerly Morall such as heathens performed It s apparent that the Apostle fits answer to Iewish objections who urged works of law written for matter of justification yea in likelihood works done in grace for whereto else comes in the example of Abraham so worthy a Saint of God Certes if of works meerly naturall there had been question example of Abimelech or Socrates or Aristides had been as pertinent to the purpose Lastly say others the Apostle speaks not de justificatione Pii but Impii not of that justification whereby a man of a righteous man is made more righteous but he speaks of justifiing a wicked man which is done by faith Answ Concerning this distinction see Annotat. in Chap. 3. But it is their opinion that he speaks of the first justification only surely Sasbout confesseth that the testimony out of Genesis treats only De augmento Iustitiae non de justificatione Impii And that is apparent to every confiderate Reader This mist of cavills thus dispelled let us now resume the Apostles conclusion and lay it for a ground that Abraham was not justified by any works of any law in any state by him performed Use Hear this now yee justitiaries that dare obtrude your menstruous merits to Godsjustice and for them claim righteousness at his judgment seat Behold Abraham that mirrout of good works as well as of faith yet stript of all right and claim to righteousness by any his obedience and dare any of his children challenge more at God hands then Abraham the pattern of justification Bring to the ballance your voluntary poverty building of temples pilgrimage vvorks of mercy or if there be any vvork that you think more glorious and see if they be not found lighter then vanity it self to those of Abraham that one vvork of obedience in offering his Son Isaac upon the altar vvhich of the sons of men can parallel I spare amplifications because they are extant in the Apostle and particularized in Ambrose De Abrah Patriarch lib. 1. Cap. 8. VER 3 4 5. For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justfieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness VVHether the words be conceived as proof of the Minor or of the principall conclusion it is not much materiall the issue being all one The argument proving it is taken from the manner or meanes of Abrahams justification which was meerly gracious the Scripture affirms that Abrahams believing was counted to him for righteousness Gen. 15.6 Ergo he had no cause of boasting because that not to the worker but to the believer only faith is imputed unto righteousness The consequence of this Enthymeme hath its proof from the place of unlikes That the force of the proofe may be better conceived let us view a little the terms of the comparison The persons compared are he that worketh and he that worketh not but believeth The things wherein they are compared as unlike is the manner or means whereby these severally obtain righteousness The worker that is he that hath works to be justified by he hath righteousness reckoned to him as wages not granted out of favour but paid as of debt He that hath no works but believes hath righteousness counted to him not of debt but of favour as if he had said that yee may see how Abrahams having faith counted righteousness left him no cause of boasting observe this difference betwixt the worker and believer viz. He that hath works to bring before God hath righteousness ascribed unto him of debt not of grace because that by his works he hath purchased righteousness as wages and so by consequence hath cause of boasting him that justifieth the ungodly it s otherwise this faith is of grace imputed to righteousness Abraham therefore being of this latter sort not a worker but a believer and by consequence hath faith of grace counted to him for righteousness surely had no cause of boasting for this matter of justification This having the better judgment of the learned I take to be the naturall resolution of the text Let us now turn back to the words and enquire their sense and what instructions they afford for our use In verse the third are two things 1. The Judg whom Paul appeales unto 2. The sentence of the judg For what saith the Scripture Holy Apostle thou forgottest thy self that didst appeal to Scripture to give sentence in a matter of dobut For we are taught by men of unerring spirits the Scripture is Mutus Index a dumbe judg not able to utter what may resolue us in matter of doubt Now how much better were it that these men were dumb then to use their tongues in manner so blaspheously derogatory to him that inspires the Scripture For be it that in property of speech the Scripture is speechless yet contains it not directions sufficient to determine doubts or needs it any more then mans minde to conceive and his tongue to publish what it contains Or hath the Church any other authority about the Scripture save only to declare what Gods Spirit therein speaks Must the sense needs be locked up in the Popes breast and the Scripture taught to mean only what he determines 2. Is it so strange and abhorrent from common language that the Scripture should be said to speak In common assemblies what more usuall How saith your record What saith the Law 3. How ever I hope Gods Spirit may be said in Scripto speak to his Church without any great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inasmuch as he doth therein utter what his meaning is And writing doth the office of speech thus far that it serves to express the conception of our minde As David said of his tongue it was the pen of a ready writer Psal 45.1 So may we say of the pens that the Lords holy scribes used they were the tongues of a ready speaker
unto them and taken notice of so far as that he was for it esteemed righteous We shall best understand the meaning by comparing the self-same phrase as it it is extant Psal 106.31 Phineas his executing judgment was counted to him for righteousness to all generations for evermore that is he for that fact or by means thereof had the esteem of a righteous man amongst men unto all posterity So Abrahams faith was counted to him for righteousness before God that is he for believing or by means of faith was esteemed or reckoned righteous before God This as far as I conceive is the proper meaning of the phrase If that hypallage seem harsh thus conceive it His believing was reckoned unto him to righteousness that is came into reckoning so far with God on his behalf or for his benefit that thereby he obtained righteousness Faith then is of that reckoning with God as that to Abraham yea to every man endued thrrewith he allowes the esteem of a righteous man understand faith as it s before described For the better understanding of this conclusion let us see a little how faith obtains this blessing of righteousness at Gods hands or what is the reason of the connexion of righteousness with believing Bellarm. de just if lib. 1. cap. 17. Divers are the explanations Papists impute it sometimes to the merit and worth of the very habit or act of faith as if it deserved at Gods hands justification and had the force of a proper efficient cause meritoriously to procure it Against it are these Reasons First Bernard Ser. 1. de Annunciat Hereof we may say as Bernard of other good works or as he terms them merits that it s not such as as that for it righteousness should be due to the believer of right or as though God should do us wrong except he gave to us believing righteousness for this as all other good qualities or actions is the gift of God and therefore man is rather a debtor to God for it then God to man Secondly Besides this how holds the difference assigned by the Apostle betwixt the worker and the believer in the manner of obtaining righteousness if righteousness belong to the believer as a reward of debt If righteousness belong to the believer of debt as a reward of believing then vainly doth the Apostle alledg this as a difference betwixt the believer and the worker that the one hath righteousness paid as of debt the other given as of grace but the difference is sure authenticall Ergo. Their arguments will be fitlyest answered when we come to set down the opinions of our own Divines Sometimes they thus conceive it that faith is the beginning of righteousness Bellarm. qua supra and the inchoate formall cause of righteousness that is part of that righteousness whereby we are made formally righteous and that they would prove out of this text because to him that believeth in him that justifyeth the ungodly his faith is counted to righteousness But they would deceive us with a false glosse for that is not the meaning that faith is counted our righteousness but that its taken notice of so far as that to the believer righteousness is imputed A mean therefore it is of obtaining righteousness not righteousness it self except by righteousness they will understand that of sanctification 1 Ioh. 3. Wherefore we acknowledg it to be a part but what is that to the righteousness of justification whereof the question is 2. After their own glosse its righteousness only aestimativè not therefore formally Sometimes again they make righteousness depend on faith as a preparation thereto in part necessary to dispose the subject to receive justification that is as they term it the infusion of charity and other graces whereby we are made formally righteous Versipelles Where may we finde you Is it the form of righteousness and yet but a preparation to righteousness Ob. The form inchoate not compleat Answ But I demand Is it before the other graces of God in time Or are they togethes with it infused If so how then make you yet a preparation only to righteousness when as together with it other gifts which make up righteousness compleate are infused Let us leave them and come to explications of our own Divines Some thus Righteousness or justification hath its connexion with faith by an order that God hath been pleased to set down in the Covenant of grace which is this that whosoever shall believe in Christ shall be justified and saved This condition now performed on our parts justification is ours and we are as righteous in Gods esteem as if we had all the righteousness of the Law performed by our selves Now this is an evident and clear truth that in the Evangelical Covenant faith is the condition of justification But first if faith justifies us as a condition performed by us fain I would know how we may maintain that doctrine of our Churches concerning sole faith and its being the only thing in us that avails to the attainment of justification for if we view the tenour of the Covenant of grace faith is not the only condition required of us to justification and remission of sins for repentance also is a condition required in that covenant to the same end Mar. 1.15 Repent and believe the Gospel Act. 2.38 Repent and be baptized for remission of sins but faith must so justifie that in that work no other thing may share with it no not repentance it self Ergo Besides this if the act of faith qua actus be that for which we are justified how doth the Apostle describe our righteousness to be without works vers 6. How sets he the worker and believer in direct opposition in the articles of justification Perhaps it will be said that works of the law only are excluded not this which is a worker of the Gospel Answ It should seem that not only works of the law but universally all works are excluded because whatsoever may occasion boasting in man is exclnded Rom. 3.27 Now as great occasion of boasting is left to man in the act of faith as in any work of the law whatsoever Nay may some mansay for faith is the gift of God and the exercise of faith meerly his work Answ The same may as truly be said of love patience c. These being also gifts infused of God and their actions even every act of them meerly his works in us even as meerly as the act of faith It remains then that we enquire whether in the other explanations of our Divines more likelihood may be found Usully it s thus conceived to justifie namely as it is an instrument to apprehend that righteousness for which we are justified even the * 1. Cor. 1.30 righteousness of Christ whether of this life or death or both it is not pertinent to this place to enquire but in this respect righteousness is ascribed unto it And here we are asked whether we
faith in Christ If a man have works his works are taken notice of and recorded and withall his reward is thus registred after the Covenant of the Law Righteousness of Debt If a man want works but have faith his faith is recorded and to him also is ascribed or imputed the same reward though out of another cause Righteousness by favour The thing we have in the word of God and perhaps it is Allegorically expressed by allusion to the customs of men This I am sure is truth in the Legal Covenant If a man do the Commandments he shall live in them and the doers of the Law shall be iustified This also is true in the Evangelicall Covenant He that believes shall be saved and if a man believes in Christ his faith shall be reckoned of to iustification The reward is all one that God intends to both they differ 1. In the condition 2. In the ground of payment Righteousness is ascribed to the Worker of Debt to the Believer of Grace God should do the worker wrong if he should not approve him as righteous that hath fulfilled the Laws But it s his mere grace that to a believer he will ascribe righteousness sith his righteousness is merely precaria performed by another and by him nothing brought but faith to receive it and tender it unto God and that faith also merely the work of God If I fail in expressing my self or explaining the Apostle yet let no man blame my desire of both but further my weakness with his help that the Apostle may be understood Sense The sense then is this as I conceive it To him that hath works such as the Law prescribes and brings them unto God righteousness is ascribed or set on his reckoning as wages belonging to him of debt and not of grace VERS 5. But to him that worketh not We must beware that we mistake not the Apoâ—â—e as if he promised righteousness to him that believes and neglected good works Jam. 2.26 For the Apostle James hath taught us that faith without works is dead and if a man say he hath faith and have no works can that faith save him And the Apostle describing faith justifying as it is in the justified man saith it worketh by love Gal. 5.6 What is then the sense To him that worketh not that is hath no such works to bring before God as for them to claim righteousness thereby or as Ambrose expounds Ambros ad loc Non operanti id est qui obnoxius est peccatis quia non operatur quod mandat Lex To him that hath no works because he is a transgressour of the Law But believeth in him See here say some how faith justifying is described To be rather an affiance in the Justifier then an assent to the Gospel Answ Rather see here affiance meeting with assent in the person of the believer they agree in the subject differ for all that in their nature In him that justifieth the ungodly Doth the Lord then justifie the wicked Answ Surely though he be God that forgiveth iniquity and sin yet will he in no case clear the wicked Exod. 34.7 and Prov. 17.15 He professeth that he is as abominable that justifieth the wicked as he that condemns the righteous Answ Hereto answers are diversely conceived according as the terms admit distinction First thus Wicked men are of two sorts some such as continue impenitently in their sinns some that by grace repent and believe in Christ Of the first sort its true God justifies them not that is acquits them not while they so continue and yet wicked men repenting and believing in Christ that is ceasing to be wicked God clears and holds innocent for to such he forgives iniquity transgression and sinne Paraeus ad loc Exod. 34.7 or thus Justifying of a wicked man is either against the orders of Justice without receiving sufficient satisfaction for the trespasse or else upon receit of sufficient satisfaction In the first sense God justifieth not the wicked in the second he mercifully justifieth us having received satisfaction in the death of his Son Lasâ—ly Justification hath divers significations sometimes it signifies to make just sometimes to declare just or to absolve In this last sense God justifies not the ungodly that is absolves him not whiles he so continues but yet he makes an ungodly man righteous Of the first kind of justification understand Moses of the second Paul His faith is counted for righteousness See explication ad vers 3. Observ The things out of this passage of Scripture observable are these First the direct opposition of Faith and Works in this Article of justification If it be by Faith it s not of Works If by Works not of Faith that howsoever it be true their concurrence is certain their agreement amiable in the life of the justified yet their contrariety irreconcileable in the procurement of justification Not to be long in the manifestation of it First the Apostles argument hath else no force in the case of Abraham except their opposition be such as is mentioned 2. Besides this view it in the contrary principles from which the two kinds of justification proceed The Worker is justified of debt the believer of grace that look what opposition there is betwixt favour and debt the same is betwixt justification by Works and justification by Faith Like see Rom. 11.6 Now were it not a point of acute Sophistry to teach us how to deny the Apostles argument and to tell him the consequence is not good because they are able to assigne a medium Witty I confesse but with such wit as S. James tells us to be * Jam. 3.15 devilish Such as it is let us hear it forsooth they point us to this medium of participation It is partly by Faith partly by Works I say not any man is so impudent as in plain terms to contradict the Apostle but surely this in the issue shall be found their answer howsoever with distinctions they colour the matter Let us hear them Justification by Faith and justification by Works indeed are opposite if ye understand in both the same justification but there is a first justification and a second the one is by Faith the other by Works Again works are of two sorts works of Nature works of Grace betwixt justification by works of Nature and that by Faith there is indeed an opposition not so in that by works of Grace For these distinctions and the vanity of them see suprà ad ver 2. Annotat. ad cap. 3. This once is evident out of this place that the Apostle imputes the justification of Abraham now regenerate unto his Faith and betwixt the justification that Abraham had being now in grace and that of works placeth the opposition Besides this what means the Apostle to befool the Galatians for expecting the perfection of this benefit by the Law which was begun by the Gospel Gal. 3.3 Would he not thereby teach us
that whole justification is perfected in Faith And for works of grace though as hath been said they agree with faith well in the heart of a Christian yet justification even by these works is opposite to that of Faith Phil. 3.9 More I adde not onely I advise them that labour to mingle Moses and Christ Faith and Works in this point of justification to remember what Paul hath pronounced Gal. 5.4 with a solemn protestation That as many as look for justification by works whether in whole or in part are fallen from grace and Christ shall nothing profit them This opposition also is to be remembred against all such as teach us to expect justification by faith as it is a work the opposition is none that I can conceive betwixt the justification by the work of faith and the work of love The next thing here offered to our notice is a distinction of rewards and it lies thus There is a reward paid as Debt there is another given of Favour And it is of some use in that grand question betwixt us and our Adversaries touching the merit of good works which from no ground they ofter infer then from this Because they shall be rewarded To this the answer is Not every work that hath a reward is by and by meritorious except the reward be paid as debt to the work Now the reward that is given to our obedience is given of favour not paid of debt and that we prove thus First because the same that is called the reward of obedience is said withall to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free gift of God A reward and yet a free gift How if paid of Debt not given of grace besides saith Bernard Mans merits or good works are of no such quality or worth as that eternall life should be due to us for them of right or as if the Lord should do us wrong except he gave it us Nam ut taceam Bern. Serm. 1. ce Annunc quòd merita omnia Dei dona sunt ità homo magìs propter ipsa Deo debitor est quà m Deus homini quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriam as S. Bernard His reasons are these Man is debtor to God for his good works because they are his gifts not God to man 2. The reward exceeds by many degrees the worth of the work Therefore is not a reward of debt but of favour If they shall reply and say God should wrong us except he thus rewarded us I answer Not us but himself the debt not growing from the worth of our works but from the grace and truth of the Promiser Debitor factus est Deus non aliquid a nobis accipiendo sed quòd ei placuit promittendo S. August De verb. Apost Serm. 16. To him that worketh not but believeth The sense see supra So then God hath not left sinfull man Observ without a means of justification though he want works such as the law required to righteousness for what through want of works we fail of he hath provided by faith shall be obtained even righteousness such as may stead us at the barr of Gods justice A point worthy of our attentive consideration for the magnifying of Gods mercy and furtherance of our comfort It was grace enough in God that he was pleased to create us in so excellent a condition only through desire to communicate himself unto us and for it he might justly claim obedience to any his commandements especially proportioned to our abilities even without any promise of farther recompence but loe that nothing should be wanting to our encouragement when he propounds a law to be obeyed he also covenants with him to crown his obedience with immortality This do and thou shalt live Lev. 18.15 Rom. 10.5 But see mans great unthankfulness to God and unmercifulness to himself not contented with the happiness presently enjoyed nor with the hope of immortality promised he affects not to be like God as he was but to be equall unto him in knowledg Gen. 3.5 He throws off the yoak of obedience and thereby deprives himself justly of all the happiness he had or could hope for plunges himself into misery endless easeless and remediless except God in mercy provide an escape Now behold the unsearchable riches of the mercy and love of God toward man loath that he should perish he enters another course for his recovery sends his own Son out of his bosome in the similitude of sinfull flesh by obedience unto death to satisfie justice that there might yet be a way for his mercy to overflow in the salvation of his chosen and in him enters a new league with man for restoring righteousness and salvation under a condition so reasonable as none more could be devised believe only in him that justifieth the ungodly thy sins are pardoned righteousness restored salvation recovered Lord what is man saith David considering a blessing far inferior that thou so reckonest on him or the son of man that thou so visitest him Psal 8.4 Our hearts must needs be dull and dead if these things work not in us more then acknowledgment even admiration of Gods endless mercy Well this was Gods mercy towards us Vse 1 Now sure I doubt not but those that have felt in any degree the misery to which the Law hath sentenced them and withall how impossible it is for the law to restore them inasmuch as its weak through the flesh can willingly say Amen to that thinksgiving of the Apostle Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift 2 Cor. 9.15 That our hearts may be yet more inflamed to this duty consider we I beseech you the preferment and property God hath given man in this mercy even above Angels creatures by naturall condition more excellent then he Heb. 2.16 Angels sinned God sent them no Mediator they fell by not obeying God hath made them no promise of rising by believing Man sinned God sent his Son to propitiate man fell by disobedience hath promise of restoring by believing Let them perish everlastingly with hellish Angells that acknowledg not this mercy or that renouncing the righteousness of faith seek to establish their own in works of the Law Vse 2 Now as this serves for the magnifying of Gods mercy so no less for the multiplying of our comfort and nourishing our hope of righteousness yea though we have no works such as the law prescribes to justification for behold another mean of righteousness provided for sinners even faith in him that justifies the ungodly And therefore what do we vexing and breaking our hearts for sins once committed now repented A mustard seed of faith commands a mountain of sin to the bottome of the sea What if Moses be so strict that none but exact justice will serve to justification One greater then Moses is here that tels us faith is available to righteousness And to the end the conscience of sins after faith received might not overthrow hope of
righteousness mark the description of him to whom faith is carried as to her proper object He is such an one as justifies the ungodly and from whom sinners great sinners believing in believing may expect justification For God justifieth the ungodly How may some men say by infusing righteousness saith Bellarmine by imputing righteousness say some of our Divines by remitting sins faith Cajetane and of our own Interpreters not a few Let us see whether hath more truth The two former have their agreements and their difference they agree in this First That to justifie in this place signifies to make righteous They differ in the manner how we are made righteous in this sense that the Apostle seems to mean whether by infusion or by imputation Papists especially Bellarmine will have it to be done only by infusing the habits of righteousness as faith charity c. whereby we are made formally and by inheritance righteous Now in handling this question we must remember that it s not denyed of us that God doth make us just by infusing righteousness For we confess God by his spirit doth sanctifie us throughout and infuse the habits of inherent righteousness as they call it whereby we are fitted to exercise morall justice 1 Ioh. 3. Neither deny we but that in the time when he justifieth us by imputation as some speak he also sanctifieth us and works a begun conformity to the law But this is that we enquire of whether this infused righteousness be that whereby we are made just so as according to the course and sentence of the law we stand just at the day of Gods justice This they affirm we all with one consent deny and that upon these grounds First For that Apostle 1 Cor. 4.4 that had his share herein as far as most yet professeth he had not nor expected justification thereby What is his meaning that he did not thereby stand just before God according to the sentence of the law In form thus Pauls righteousness inherent made not him stand just before God according to the tenour of the law Ergo No man is made so just by inherent righteousness as to stand just thereby before God according to the law Psal 143.2 David excellently endued with this righteousness yet deprecates tryall by judgment acording to the law upon this reason In Gods sight no man shall be justified The arguments are two First If David fear the tryall of Gods judgment by the law that had so great a measure of righteousness then is not that the righteousness whereby we stand just before God according to the law for a man having that righteousness which the law requires needeth not fear tryall by exactest justice but David deprecates judgment Ergò 2. View his reason No living man shall be justified in thy sight to wit if thou deal with him in judgment according to the law Theodoret paraphrasing the text expounds Novienim fieri non posse ut aliquis sine paenâ à tuo tribunali discedat si enim hominum vitae regulam legum â te latarum appones nemo secundum has vixisse videbitur And Augustine quantumlibet rectus mihi videar producis tu de thessauro tuo regulam coaptas me ad eam et pravus invenior To these testimonies so direct what answers give they Perhaps they will say they speak of actuall justice not of habituall and therefore are impertinently alledged to the purpose in hand Answ Not to examine that distinction we shall see they conclude as well against habituall as against actuall righteousnes For is our actuall righteousness such as may not endure the censure of the law then certainly it more then seems the habits whence they proceed are not so perfect as after the law they should be For what should let the perfect habit of faith to bring forth a perfect act of faith c. sith therefore the acts are imperfect so are the habits also But other answers they have many and variable First that the Prophet speaks only of justice which a man hath of himself not of God Bellarm. in Psal 143. lib. 4. cap. 20. de justific and that he denies a man to be justified thereby But howsoever or whensoever David had his righteousness if it were justice such as in the law is required why deprecates he judgment He needs not fear Gods Tribuniall that hath the iustice of the law to present unto God For it s written The man that doth them shall live in them Rom. 10 5. Their second Answer is this That David deprecates judgement because of his veniall sins and they forsooth though they deserve punishment in exact justice yet hinder not justification Answ Well then belike these lighter sinnes though a man have He may be justified according to the Law What is then become of that sentence of the Law cursing all men to the pit of Hell that continue not in all things little or great written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 2. And are these the sins onely for which David feared judgement then hear either veniall sins hinder justification or else David doth ill give this as a reason why he was so loath to have the Lord enter into judgement with him because no flesh should be justified in Gods sight In a word draw out the Prophets speech something largely after this Exposition The sense will be this Oh Lord I beseech thee spare calling me to reckoning for my veniall sins For in respect of them sith no man is free from them no flesh shall be justified in thy sight Their third answer No flesh shall be justified because our Righteousness though it be true and pure in it self yet compared to the infinite righteousness of Gods Nature it seems no righteousness as the light of a candle though it be light yet compared to that of the sunne is no light and this exposition hath the Authority of some Fathers annexed Answ With this distinction of righteousness I find no fault It hath the testimony of Fathers and the warrant of Scripture Job 4.18 But is this the reason why David so much feared to come to judgement because he wanted righteousness comparable to the Essential righteousness of God Who can think it it sufficeth to any man at the day of judgement to bring unto God the righteousness which the Law prescribes neither need he fear punishment because he wants righteousnes comparable to that Lev. 18.5 Rom. 10.5 which God hath as God and thus Theod. Aug. and others interpret that his desire to be free from judgement was because he answered not to the rule of righteousness Now is Gods Essentiall righteousness The Rule after which in judgement our righteousness must be squared Dic sodes I think rather the Law of God Saint Hierome in his time alleadged this Scripture against Pelagius to prove that no man ever was or could be so Holy as to live without sin what answer receives he saith
by ourselves The righteousness of God is the righteousness which God in Christ performed fulfilling the Law for us called the Righteousness of Faith because we are by faith made partakers of it See Illyric Zanch. ad Phil. 3. If any shall demand what the difference between these two is I answer They differ not at all in the matter or substance of righteousness for the righteousness which by Christ we are made partakers of is that very righteousness which the Law prescribes namely perfect obedience to the Law but they differ efficiente our righteousness that we in our persons perform to the law And that it is no other righteousness then what the law prescribes for substance whereof in justification we are made partakers that one place Rom. 9.32 is clear where the Apostle giving a reason why the Jews that followed the law of righteousness attained not the law of righteousness that is as most interpret the righteousness which the law prescribes The reason was because they sought it not by faith but by the works of the law as if he had said Had they sought it by believing as they did by working they had attained the righteousness which the law prescribes to justification The righteousness of the law then we obtain by faith to justification It is therefore the righteousness which in justification we are made partakers of How then is it said to be righteousness without works I answer In respect of us without works In respect of Christ the performer not so Come we now to the means how it is imputed unto us and that is by Imputation Imputation Imputation of righteousness What it is in this case we may thus describe To be an act of God ascribing to us the righteousness of Christ and counting it ours no less then if we had in our own persons performed it Touching it it is enquired whether there be any such act of God in our justification Papists generally deny it and make the righteousness of Christ to avail to justification onely as a cause procuring to us remission of sins and the gifts of the holy Ghost That which our Divines hitherto have consented in is this That the righteousness of Christ is not onely the cause for which the Lord remits sins c. but the very thing whereby we are made righteous in the sight of God Their reasons are these 1. Because we are said to be made righteous by the obedience of Christ Rom. 5.19 shall we say as by a procuring cause nay rather formally For so are we made sinners by the transgression of Adam And the purpose of the Apostle in that comparison betwixt Adam and Christ seems to be this To shew that it is no absurd thing that we should be made righteous by the righteousness of Christ seeing we were made sinners by Adams disobedience Inst But Adams disobedience was not ours by imputation but we rather were actours therein by an implicite act sinning in Adam To say nothing that the whole stream of Interpreters judge otherwise Let it be granted that we were actours in Adams sinne being in his loins Why not also actours in Christs obedience being one mystically with him by bond of the spirit 2. It is no more absurd that we should be righteous by imputation of Christs Righteousness then that Christ should be a sinner by imputation of our sins but Christ was a sinner by imputation of our sins Inst Not a sinner but a sacrifice for sinne Answ The exposition is ancient but 1. The Antithesis bears it not and 2. How could God punish him in that extremity had he not taken upon him our sins 3. For to Papists methinks of all men Imputation should be no such ridiculous matter sith they are of opinion the overplus of some Saints righteousness may be applyed to others by indulgence to make up the defects of their obedience How I wonder except by imputation 4. Quid quod Their Bellarmine plainly confesseth Bellarm. de Amiss grat stat peccat lib. 4. c. 10. Bernard ser 1. de Dom. 1. post octavas Epiphaniae that Adams sin is imputed to all his posteritie so as if they had all committed the same and alledgeth to this purpose the testimonies of Augustine and Bernard Nostra est inquit Bernardus Adami culpa quia etsi in alio nos tamen peccavimus nobis justo Dei judicio imputabatur licèt occulto And why so absurd sith Adams sin is in this manner ours Christs righteousness should also in like sort become Ours that as the same Bernard speaks aliena lavet aqua quos culpa inquinaverat aliena And so wash as the other had defiled Against it these reasons are brought First that it hath no testimonie either in Scriptures or Fathers to avow it Answ What none neither expressed nor implyed we have above shewed that the Scripture testifieth as well what it implyeth as what it expresseth how say we now to this Scripture in hand God imputeth righteousness without works whose our own that stands in works Phil. 3.9 Anothers therefore and whose else I wonder except Christs who alone is mentioned to be the procurer of our righteousness Hear S. Bernard Domine Bern. ser in Cant. 61. memorabor justitiae tuae solius Ipsa est enim mea nempe factus es mihi Tujustitia à Deo nunquid mihi verendum ne non una ambobus sufficiat non est pallium breve quod secundum Prophetam non possit operire duos Justitia tua justitia in aeternum quid longius aeternitate te pariter me operiet largiter larga aeterna justitia Object 2. No necessitie of such imputation of Christs righteousness Answ Yes That we may be found at that great day having such perfection of righteousness as for which we may be accepted and pronounced righteous See Phil. 3.9 Inst But our inherent righteousness is perfect for faith hope charity c. are perfect Answ Hear Bernard Are we better then our Fathers They said with as much truth as humility All our righteousnesses are like the clothes of a menstruous woman Isa 64.6 and again Quomodo pura justitia ubi non potest culpa deesse Augustine August epist 29. ad Hieron Charitas in aliis major in aliis minor in aliis nulla plenissima verò quae jam non potest augeri quamdiu hic homo vivit in nemine est quamdiu autem augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quà m debet Bern. in Cant. ser 174. ex vitio est And again Charitatis effectualis initium quidem profectúmque vitam quoque praesentem experiri divinâ posse gratiâ non negamus sed plane consummationem defendimus futurae felicitati And if any shall ask why it is commanded when it cannot be fulfilled Bernard answers Judicavit utilius ex hoc ipso suae illos insufficiontiae admoneri ut scirent sane ad quem justitiae finem
to the course of the Covenant Now the defect of the verb is diversly supplyed Cajetan some thus adimplenda fuit others thus contingit or contigit and these by the promise understand the thing promised I would rather thus facta est as Gal. 3.16 By the Law That is works or righteousness of the law but of what law that given in Sinai or that of nature Paraeus Answ Vnderstand either or both and that some think is intimated by abscence of the article as a condition or a means we shall anon resolve I have now propounded the severall judgments of Interpreters touching the sence Whether shall we resolve of for my own part I will peremptorily prescribe to no man My judgment only I will propound The conclusion I think is this That justification belongs to believers all and only in respect not of works but of faith The Reasons proving it is taken partly from the form or manner of conveiance in the promise partly from parity In this form If the promise of inheritance to Abraham and his seed was to be accomplished not by legall obedience but by righteousness of faith then it followes that we are justified by faith and not by works But the promise of the inheritance to Abraham was to be accomplished not by the law but by the righteousness of faith Ergo. The consequence of the proposition hath this ground because that justification must be by such means as the inheritance may be obtained and that is obtained so as it is promised it is promised to be obtained by the righteousness of faith as a mean or disposition thereto tending Ergo. Justification is by faith and not by the law Hitherto the Connexion The particulars of this verse are these First The ground of Abrahams and our title to the blessing and that is the promise Secondly The matter of the promise To be the heir of the world Thirdly The means whereby we partake the promise set out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by the law but by the righteousness of faith Observ Out of the first this is the collection That the title we have to the blessings of God that concerne life and godliness is the promise of God And our whole claim to them is sub titulo promissionis compare Gal 3.18 For this cause I think it is that the blessings of God which we partake are so often called promises and the Children of God the heires of the promise see Heb. 9.12 17. and 10.36 because by virtue of the promise accrewes our claim title and possession of the blessing Hence Peter Act. 2.39 reasons for the blessing and seal thereof in respect of the humbled Iews the promises are made to you and to your seed And to assure us of enjoying them Gods Spirit usually sends us to consideration of the Lords fidelity 1 Cor. 1.9 and 10 13. 1 Thess 5.24 2 Thess 3.3 Heb. 10.23 c. And it is not to be omitted that Budaeus observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a promise meerly voluntary and gratuitous without respect to any worth in the party to whom it is made In which respect it seems to be opposed to the law Gal. 3.18 From whence it well follows in Pauls Divinity that it is not founded on the worth of any our works Gal. 3.18 neither may we claim them as due to us for the merit of our obedience And howsoever obedience be required as a qualification of our persons to make us capable thereof yet the cause moving God to bestow them is not our righteousness but Gods promise Memorable is that caveat Moses gives to Israel being now at the skirts of Canaan say not in thy heart c. for my righteousness Deut. 9.4.5 the Lord hath brought me in to possesse this land c. Not for thy righteousness or for the uprightness of thy heart doest thou go in but for the wickedness of these nations c. and that the Lord may porform the word Which the Lord sware unto thy fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob his reason is vers 16. Thou art a stiff-necked people which self-reason hath place in us all whatever our righteousness be by grace Rebellion alas Rom. 7.23 how much is still in our nature Hence it is that the Saints of God in their prayers to God usually acknowledg their own unworthiness and the blessings they crave and lay claim to they claim by promise read Neh. 1.8 9. And if ever we read in any of them allegation of righteousness as Isai 38.3 It is not intended as cause of the blessing but as a disposition in the person fitting it to receive the blessings made ours by promise In the next place consider we the matter of the promise That he should be the heir of the world The Heir that is saith Mr. Beza out of Vlpian Lord or owner agreeably to that Gal. 4.1 Howbeit something else is withall signified that this possession descends upon him freely as an inheritance not as by way of purchase Of the world That is say some of believers of all nations whereof supra say others of the Kingdome of Heaven others of whole heaven and earth and all the creatures therein with whatsoever heaven or earth can afford to make him blessed in token and pledg whereof Canaan was given him by promise as being the most fertile and pleasant part of the world and withall a type of Heaven and as Heb. 4 and 12. the rest pleasantness and glory thereof This I think the best interpretation for reasons above assigned Observ Whereout observe we That by covenant and promise Gods Children have title to the whole world All things are yours saith the Apostle whether Paul or Cephas or the world c. or things present or things to come all are yours 1 Cor. 3.21 22. And again godliness hath promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come And if any shall say that in experience we see Gods Children none of the greatest sharers in the things of this life Answ The lack of use hinders not our title and property in them The heir is Lord of all in title though in this nonage he differs nothing from a servant Gal. 4.1.2 That little they enjoy they enjoy comfortably as their own without usurpation Tit. 1.15 1 Tim. 4.4 5. 3. A recompence they have in graces equivalent here Mar. 10.29 30. by an happy commutation 4. And in the life to come full fruition of that happiness which passeth all the felicity earth can afford unto them 5. Besides there is in the best something that turns many of these earthly blessings into poyson as Agur intimates Prov. 30.8 9. And experience daily teacheth In that case therefore if the Lord keep us short to prevent our mischief shall we say his promises is not made good 6. Finally our wants in this kinde are usually chastisements of particular disobedience c. From whence followes as a just consectary this
paradox That Gods Children are the richest heirs in the world being by promise heirs of the whole world and of all the comforts earth or heaven can afford them And should it not teach us to labour to come within the Covenant of grace Questionless it is true that though in civill states men aliens from the Covenants of promise have by humane right a dominion and property in the things they enjoy yet in respect of spirituall and true interest they are but usurpers the air they breath in the earth they tread on the heavens they look on the meat they eate the cloaths they are cloathed withall are not theirs much less the comforts of a better life For the promise whereon such right is founded belongs only to Abraham and to his seed c. The last thing remains and that is the means whereby the promise was intended to be accomplished Not by the law c. but by the righteousness of faith Not by the Law may some men say though to Abraham the promise was given through faith yet to his seed it was made by the law Rom. 10.5 Lev. 18.5 Answ Made it might be to his seed by the law hypothetically but the exhibition and performance was neither accomplished nor yet intended to be accomplished save only by the righteousness of faith And yet was not the law vainly given there being so many other ends to which the promulgation in Sinai tended as the Apostle afterwards cap. 5. fully shewes Now from the manner of the Apostles reasoning we learn so to exspect the blessings promised as they are promised and intended to be performed God promised Abraham and his seed to be heirs of the world the means whereby that promise was intended to be performed was not by the law but by the righteousness of faith by faith therefore and not by works must we exspect the enjoying of them and of all our hopes of things promised this must be the measure By what means In what manner In what measure they are promised so to exspect the blessings For example he hath promised to godliness all the good blessings of the earth but how hath he promised it with limitation to experiency with exception of the cross Disjunctively either the blessings or the equivalent c. He hath promised victory to us in the spirituall combate but it is neither perfect victory nor without condition of striving lawfully nor so but that for our humiliation and to teach us compassion he may leave us to our selves and permit us to foyls in many particulars Sic de reliquis The due meditation whereof serves to support Gods truth in his promise and our hopes of enjoying the blessings promised both which our ignorance often makes to waver because of our misprisions the Matter of the promise we look at the Manner how it is made we seldome consider For example Godliness we say hath the promise of this life How is it accomplished saith a weakling in his wants Answ As it is promised so I dare say it is performed to thee so farre as these Temporalities are expedient for thee so be it thou demean thy self as becomes a child of God either in the kind or by a compensation in spirituall things equivalent thou enjoyest them c. And want of this Prudence in weighing the manner how the promises are conveyed alas how many inconveniencies hath it drawn Gods great servants unto Abraham had a promise of a seed to come out of his loins intended by Sarah because the time is delayed and naturall vigour decayeth Sarah begins to distinguish she shall obtain children by her maid it may be and so Abraham goes in to Hagar to have the promise hastened Rebecca had learnt from Gods mouth that Jacob was the Beloved and the blessing should be derived from him to his brother Esau but see how she betakes her self to shifts of her own that Gods intentions may take place c. the like in sundry particulars might be instanced Learn we to exspect the promises by means in manner measure time that God hath been pleased to limit them withall A more particular observation out of the Text is this That the inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed was never intended to be exhibited to them through the righteousness of the Law as a mean whereby they should obtain it What needs much confirmation the conclusion being the Apostles almost in so many words and reasons by him annexed to that purpose Had God a purpose by the Law to make us partakers of the Inheritance What meant he then to substitute another mean namely the righteousness of Faith Perhaps some should obtain it by the Law others by faith How absurd is that conceit when as the Apostle hath taught us that God is unvariable in his courses in this kind Rom. 3.30 and can we think the posterity obtained it by any other mean then Abraham the root of blessing Either therefore God intended not unto us the inheritance by the Law or else vain was the substitution of faith Hereto let us add this consideration That no man ever yet obtained it by the righteousness of the Law and can we better judge of Gods intentions then by the event Besides How was it that the Lord creating Adam in the perfection of righteousness wittingly permitted his fall if he had meant to give us the inheritance by the Law see Rom. 11.32 And wherefore is it that having power to enable us to perfect performance of the Law He never yet supplyed any of his Saints with perfection of strength to fulfill it Certes if by Legall righteousness he intended for us the inheritance that righteousness should be at least by Grace given unto us But it is given to none If any shall now demand why the Law was given except to be a mean of the inheritance Answ Let him hear the Apostle To shew us our sinne Rom. 3.20 To beat down pride to drive unto Christ Gal. 3.24 And if to any it be propounded as a mean of life I dare say it is to a proud Justitiary to the end to humble him and to drive him through conscience of infirmity from confidence in works to believing in Christ for righteousness Vse Is it now any less then madness in our popish Justitiaries to thrust into Heaven by the Law which God never intended to be a mean of the inheritance One of the two I dare say they must procure that by it will enter either an alteration of Gods intention that he may make the Law the mean of inheritance or else by strong hand break into Heaven by such a mean as God hath not provided Synagoga Bernard ser 14. super Cantica saith Bernard fortis est the Jewish Synagogue so may we say the Romish also is strong she cares not for the light burthen nor for the sweet yoke Confidet in Lege liberet eam si potest but sure saith he there is no such Law given as can give
life suprá Iâ—st judicium ut qui contemnunt Dei misericordem justitiam suam volunt constituere eidem suae justitiae relinquantur opprimendi magis quà m justificandi For us Let us learn to expect the inheritance by the means whereby God hath intended to give it What is that if not the Law the Apostle answers The Righteousness of Faith And what is that righteousness say Papists Cui fides est initium that is in short Bellarm. de Justif l. 1. c. 17. obedience which we in our own persons perform to the law after we have received to believe the word of God so great force is there in general faith to make works imperfect in themselves and therefore condemned by the law to be the mean of our inheritance and salvation But I wonder what made Paul now a believer having it in so exellent a measure yet to say he was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4.4 Large discussing of the point I mean not on this occasion to enter into But this I am sure of the law to salvation requires perfection of obedience curses to hell even the least imperfections Gal. 3.10 and doth any man believing receive ability to perform it to the full I am sure it s Augustines and Hieromes resolution that howsoever perhaps such measure of grace may be obtained yet there never yet lived the man on earth nor should do to the end of the world so righteous that he did good and sinned not Eccles 7.20 Say others The righteousness of faith That is the righteousness which stands in faith so making faith the substance as it were of that righteousness whereby we are justified and saved against it are these reasons 1. That then our righteosness whereby we are just in Gods sight shall be a thing that is imperfect for hath any man at all times perfection of faith 2. Accordingly conscience shall never have solid peace neither in act nor in the cause 3. Righteousness of Justification shall be variable in the degrees according as faith is more or less in the same or divers subjects so that some shall be more some less justified in the sight of God and the same man according as his faith ebbs or flows shall be whiles perfectly whiles partially whiles not at all justified in the sight of God For the act of faith wherein according to this opinion our righteousness stands may by the consent of all be lost for a time The old way still is the good way by righteousness of faith that is by righteousness which faith apprehends in Christ see Rom. 5.17 By righteousness of Christ then apprehended by faith obtain we the promised inheritance Gal. 3.22 The Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe and vers 9. They which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham By faith they are made partakers of the Blessing Vse Exhortation in this point is more needfull then proof the whole Scripture almost running this way Be we exhorted therefore leaving all confidence in the Law for righteousness or salvation to cleave fast to the righteousness of faith It is a fearfull doom passed on the Jews by the Apostle Rom. 10.3 that going about to stablish their own righteousness they were not subject to the righteousness of God And was it for nothing think we that the Apostle counts all dung and dross for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ and desires to be found in him not having his own righteousness by the Law but that which is by the righteousness of faith Phil. 3.8.9 Surely if any had cause to trust therein the Apostle much more that from the time of his calling had lived in all good conscience before God and men Acts 23.1 and yet knowing that thereby he was not justified or saved he utterly disclaims confidence therein and rests onely in that which is by faith of Christ Whose example let us follow as we desire to have comfort in the day of judgement Bern. in tantic Ser. 30. S. Bernard elegantly comparing grace and the Law together in their effects saith Quà m dissimili vultu ad omnem conscientiam se offerunt suavitas hujus illius austeritas quis sanè ex aequo respiciat condemnantem consolantem reposcentem ignoscentem plectentem implectentem And surely they know little the terrour of the Judge and have had as little experience of the Laws arraignment in the conscience that trust to their own polluted righteousness and not to that absolute obedience of Christ the Mediatour Proceed we now in the Text. VERS 14 15. For if they which are of the Law be heirs faith is made void and the promise made of none effect Because the Law worketh wrath For where no Law is there is no transgression THe words tend to confirmation of the Apostles former argument for justification by faith the summe whereof was this That the promise of inheritance was not to be accomplished by the Law c. the proof of it is here laid down taken from a double inconvenience issuing from that manner of attaining the inheritance If they which are of the Law be heirs then is faith made void and the promise of none effect But neither is faith void nor the promise of none effect Ergò They which are of the Law be not heirs or which is equivalent the promise of inheritance is not obtained by the Law They which are of the Law That is saith Theodoret Qui ex Lege vitam instituerunt saith Cajetan Qui subditi sunt Legi Mosi Sasbout Qui Legis observatores sunt Many the like Expositions might be cited Thus I think rather They which are of the Law that is which by the works of the Law seek the inheritance as Gal. 3.9 10. The Apostle sorts them that seek righteousness and salvation into two kinds Some are of faith they are such as by faith seek the inheritance Theophylact. ad Gal. 3. Some again are of the works of the Law they are such as by the Law seek salvation or as Theophylact They are of faith Quirelictà Lege ad fidem se conferunt They of the Law which leaving faith betake themselves to the Law If these be heirs namely ex Lege as Ambrose interprets if they get the inheritance by the Law Then is faith void Whose faith Gods or Mans Gods saith Cajetan that is his fidelity in keeping promise impertinently rather Mans prescribed of God to be the means of inheritance Their faith is void or vain What is that whether frustrate in respect of fruit or unnecessary and needless in the prescript Calvin Instit lib. 3. c. 11. S. 11.13 3. or else as M. Calvin so shaken that it turns to distrust and degenerates towards desperation this latter is a truth as he explains it there being left no place for perswasion of justification if it depend upon condition of fulfilling the Law
inasmuch as no man can ever be assured that he hath fatisfied the Law nor indeed can by works fulfill it But the other Expositions seem more pertinent let us view them Faith is vain That is say some frustrate and fruitless though how they explain not perhaps they thus conceive it If they onely which fulfill the Law be heirs then faith is fruitless and can never attain the inheritance promised inasmuch as no man is able to fulfill the Law But I take it the Apostle hath eye rather to the prescription of faith on Gods part then to the fruit on ours So that the sense is this If they which seek the inheritance by the Law do by the Law obtain it needlesly and vainly was faith prescribed to be the means of inheritance To discern the consequence of this argument view we whereupon the necessity of substituting faith instead of works grew The Lord had made a covenant of life with man upon condition of fulfilling the Law so that if he kept the Law and continued in obedience thereof he should live see Rom. 10.5 Lev. 18.5 Man falling through disobedience lost the benefit of that Covenant and withall propagated to posterity a nature so not onely impotent to fulfill the Law but vitiously inclined to the breach thereof that there was no hope of salvation by the Law Howbeit the Lord out of his love to mankind and loath that the whole posterity should perish in his rich mercy was pleased to enter a new covenant of life and salvation establishing another means for our happiness which was faith of the Messiah by which through grace performed we might from Christ receive a better and more firm title to the inheritance This was one reason why faith was prescribed as is intimated Rom. 8. and Gal. 3. Now how needless had this been if by the Law we might inherit salvation To what end go we by faith out of our selves to seek righteousness and salvation in Christ if by the Law performed by our selves we might have obtained it The Consequence therefore we see to be firm Let us now consider what out of this argument may be collected viz. Observ The Doctrine of salvation by works frustrates faith and chargeth on God the crime of folly in ordeining it to be the onely mean of inheritance Much to this purpose speaks the Apostle Gal. 3 c. If righteousness be by the Law then Christ died in vain it had been needless for the Lord to send his Son to die for our sins thereby to procure unto us justification if by the Law we might have obtained the blessing and Rom. 8.3 he makes this his reason why the Lord sent his Son in the similitude of sinfull flesh because it was impossible for the Law weakned by the flesh to give us righteousness Whereto what say our adversaries Forsooth their old distinctions they obtrude for answer Works are of two sorts some done by strength of naturall free-will some by grace and faith works of naturall free-will indeed frustrate faith and grace and Christs death not so works done by grace in faith yea the Apostles consequence Gal. 3. is very firm if by them we will exclude works done through grace For it followes not that if we be justified by works following faith that then Christ dyed in vain Bellarm. de justif lib. 1. cap. 19. nay if Christ had not dyed we could not have been justified by faith or works issuing therefrom It being Gods grace in Christ that hath made our works so virtuous Answ Where first we desire to know for our learning where in all the Scripture we may finde that Christs death or our faith gives to our works justifying or saving virtue That our services are acceptable to God by Iesus Christ that our works done in faith are pleasing to him though in great weakness performed we finde that they are of value to countervail our sins or to purchase Heaven we finde not nay the contrary we finde in sundry Scriptures taught us 2. Yea the purgation of our sins we know Christ made by himself Heb. 1.3 and the way into the holy of holies to be opened by his flesh never by our righteousness Heb. 10.19 20. 3. Let the Reader observe how cleanly a gull they would put upon us in this distinction of works done by grace and those done by power of naturall free will For in these works of grace free-will is according to their principles the predominant 4. Doth the Law of God in any place allow us justification by works imperfect though done in grace search and see whether it damne not to hell the least blemises cleaving to our works and require not only that the principall manner and end be regular but that in every respect they be pure and free from blemish All which considered return us our conclusion firm and undoubtfull notwithstanding these cavills of popish Iustitiaries In our passage let us take notice of the intolerable pride of our merit-mongers chusing rather to robbe God of the glory of his wisdome then in humility to acknowledg the imperfection of their own obedience How much better were it with holy Iob 4â— 6 to abhor our selves in dust and ashes then thus to nullifie the wisdome of God in frustrating his prescripts hath God appointed faith the sole mean of inheritance and shall we by works seek to inherit the blessing I say not much but sure Gal. 4.30 if Ishmael may not be heir with the Son of promise no more shall Workres with believers The second inconvenience follows to be scanned The promise by this means becomes ineffectuall How if any demand Answ Because the inheritance promised shall never by this means be obtained For hangs it on condition of fulfilling the law And must those that desire to inherit by legall obedience obtain salvation Who then can be saved Seeing no man is able by any measure of grace in this life given to fill up the measure of legall righteousness This saving the judgment of more Learned I take to be the ground of the consequence the rather for the reasons objoyned Hence the inference is fluent That who so teacheth us to seek salvation by works frustrates Gods promise and deprives us of salvation Not but that good works are necessary but as duties not as merits for thankfulness not for righteousness as the way to the kingdome not as causes of salvation the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman Gal. 4.30 That is by Pauls intention not legall workers with Evangelicall believers Gal. 3.9 As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse so far is it that they should have any title to the blessing Such mischiefs bring pharisaicall Iustitiaries upon their sectaries Hear the Reasons They bind us by this means to a condition and means of Salvation impossible not onely to Nature but to Grace according to that portion God is pleased in this life to
carriage He that takes not up his Crosse and follows me is not worthy of me saith our Saviour Matth. 10.38 Crux Christi facilis est nudum post Christum ire ludus est jocus est Christs crosse is easie to follow Christ stript of all helps of this life it is a matter of sport Hieron advers Pelag. lib. 2. a very play-game Thus S. Hierome Ironically His answer is this It is certain they are called light not simply but in comparison to the yoke of the Jews something he aimed at Thus we answer The Commandments of God must be two wayes considered 1. As propounded in the rigorous terms of the Law so the yoke is importable 2. As tempered to our weakness in the Gospel so comparatively light In respect 1. of the assister Gods Spirit 2. of the accepter that is content to approve endeavours Aug. Retract lib. 1. cap. 19. and to pardon omissions Augustine Omnia mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur Object Instances we have many of such as have kept the Law as of Zachary David Job c. to whom the Scripture gives the title of Just men Answ Just they are called because absque vitio free from notorious crimes non quia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 void of all sin even infirmities Hierome 2. Not simply just but in comparison to others of their times August de pecc mer. remiss l. 2. c. 12 Ex hominum qui sunt in terra comparatione laudatur Augustine 3. Just in respect of their endeavour for Zacharies foul incredulity is recorded and chastened so is Davids adultery and murther and Jobs defects in that grace wherein he was the greatest mirrour Object May do more then is commanded as sell his possessions and give them to the poore Answ Duties enjoyned are of two sorts 1. Some generally and perpetually binding 2. Some duties in casu as leaving goods life c. for Christs sake which though till God call to performance they are not necessary to be done yet stand they in force upon the conscience by Gods precept Quod ad praeparationem animi and in case the Lord call to actuall forsaking of goods or life it is so a duty that the omission thereof makes culpable of damnation Matth. 10.37 Object Impossibilia non ligant No man is bound to an impossibility yea it were not onely vain to propound impossible precepts but tyrannicall in God the Lawgiver to exact obedience Answ Man is to be considered 1. In pure nature 2. In impure nature 3. In nature purified 4. In nature glorified In nature pure before the fall they were possible In nature glorified they shall be possible In nature merely impure merely impossible In nature purified partly possible In perfection impossible Inst Then they bind not Answ It follows not God made man righteous at the first Eccles. 7.29 and hath not lost his right of exacting because we are wilfully disabled to performance In a word they are impossible not per se but ex accidenti Inst However yet vainly enjoyned Answ Nor that saith Augustine August de pec mer. remiss lib. 2. c. 16. In contemptorum damnatione facit Deus quod justum est in proficientium mundatione quod bonum est and the Apostle sets down uses sufficient as 1. To acquaint us with sin Rom. 3.20 2. To drive us to Christ Gal. 3.24 in whom God hath provided a remedie for our imperfections Legatur Bernardus Ser. 2. in vigil Nat. Dom. fol. 11. A Propterea mandata sua Object He that is born of God sins not 1. Iohn 3.9 Answ And yet saith the same Apostle If we say we have no sin there is no truth in us 1. Ioh. 1.8.10 Bern. serm 1. in Septuag Bernard thus interprets He sins not that is non permanet in peccato he lies not impenitently in his sin 2. Or thus tantundem est ac si non peccet pro eo scilicet quòd non imputatur peccatum 3. Augustine thus We are all after regeneration August de pecc mer. remiss lib. 2. c. 7 8. in part the children of the world though in part also we be the sonnes of God and though per quod filii Dei sumus per hoc non possumus peccare yet per hoc quod adhuc filii seculi sumus per hoc peccare adhuc possumus Other Expositions there are many the fittest these He sins not nor can sinne 1. Namely unto death 1. Joh. 5.18 2. Not with full or whole consent Rom. 7.15 Gal. 5.17 3. Not customarily practising known sins or in the Apostles phrase not walking after the flesh Rom. 8.1 The summe of all is this That in respect of frailtie of flesh and small measure of grace in this life given the righteousness of the Law is impossible the transgression of the law inevitable Vse Let us now see a little how we may use this conclusion to our profit and first I cannot here but take notice of that pride and arrogancy of our vulgar people then whom though none be more licentious in life yet none that arrogate to themselves greater purity or perfection of righteousness And howsoever they scoff at the very endeavour of purity in others though with never so feeling acknowledgement of imperfections yet who hath not heard that proud profession from their mouthes They can love God above all their neighbour as themselves To whom if our Saviour should propound like triall as to him in the Gospel that made like proud profession I doubt not but they should discover as much hypocrisie Our Saviour lighting on such a braggard that had from his youth up kept the Commandments to make him see his pride and hypocrisie propounds him not as Papists say A counsell of Perfection but a precept of triall Thou professest to love God above all and thy neighbour as thy self If that be so sell all that thou hast and give to the poore thou shalt have reward in heaven That precept to such a measure of love as was professed was not harsh But He goes away sorrowing saith the Text and thereby bewrayes his proud dissembling Let the triall be far more reasonable unto our people Leave but profane pastimes unlawfull profits for his sake you love so well this speech is as harsh to our proud dissembling self-loving people To us all Let me say as Paul Gal. 4.21 You that will needs be under the law for justification do ye not hear the law you look for righteousness by the law it causeth transgression for salvation it causeth wrath And is it not strange men acquainted with Scriptures should cleave so close to the justification of the Law I had once to deal with a Papist in this question and that of merit Mentior if he professed not that except he thought he could merit righteousness and salvation by his works he would never do any good work Miserable man are there not motives strong enough to
obedience except thou mayest thereby be justified Is not that love of God in sending his Son to dye for thy sins that he might make thee zealous of good works enforcement sufficient to all obedience except thou mayest part stakes with Christ in the glory of thy salvation Hear Paul The love of Christ constraineth me to all faithfulness in my calling 2 Cor. 5.14 2. And is it nothing that by this means we make our calling and Election sure 2 Pet. 1.10 3. Nothing that others by seeing their spotless conversation are occasioned to glorifie God Mat. 5.16 In a word that nothing might be wanting to quicken our dulness the Lord hath been pleased by promise to binde himself to recompence even of slenderest duties tendred to him in sincerity Mat. 10.41 A reward thou shalt have accrewing not from worth of thy works but from grace of the promiser Will not that satisfie Not at all except they may merit Heaven as if they should say they had rather have no salvation then be beholden to Gods bounty for the bestowing The Apostle methinks thunders against such meritmongers They are fallen from grace and Christ shall profit them nothing Gal. 5.4 Lastly Hence learn to detest as greatest enemies to thy salvation all such as teach to seek it by the law of such saith Paul let them be Anathema Aut utinam exscindantur Gal. 5.12 Of all Hereticall and false Teachers this last age hath afforded I know none more pernicious then these two 1. Libertines that teach to neglect obedience as in every respect unnecessary 2. Justitiaries that press obedience as available to justification The first sort are odious to all except Epicures The latter by how much the more strictly they urge obedience and that so fittingly to the humor of nature by so much the more pernicious As much excludes from Heaven the intention of meritting by performing as the neglect of the Lawgivers authority in omitting obedience These are enemies to the Dominion The other professed adversaries to the grace of God VERS 16 17. Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all Vers 17. As it is written I have made thee a Father of many nations c. HItherto hath been shewen that justification is not by works Followes now farther confirmation of the affirmitive part that it is by faith The arguments here laid down are from the ends and scope which the Lord propounds to himself in our justification and salvation First The glory of his grace Secondly Our comfort Thirdly And both these are intended to all the seed All these severall arguments are artifically linked together by the Apostle and as it were entwyned one in another by mutuall dependance Let us view them severally It must be by faith that it may be by grace If the inheritance be ours by grace and not by debt then must it be by faith but it is ours by grace Ergo. The force of the consequence we will shew after we have a little explaned the text The verb suppositum are both wanting It is by faith What must be by faith Either the promise or the inheritance the inheritance rather see vers 13.14 What is the verb to be supplyed whether it is promised or it is attained whether we will the sense no whit varied by either The parcells here to be considered are two First That the inheritance is attained by grace Secondly That except it be attained by faith it cannot be ours by grace It were impertinent perhaps on this occasion to run out into that question Whether by grace we are here to understand the gifts of grace in us or the favour of God towards us The best Interpreters amongst the adversaries oppose it to debitum and expound it liberality Cajetan Sasbout By grace then understand we Gods free and undeserved favour without any of our works or debt accrewing from God to us by merit see vers 4 and Rom. 11.6 Observ The point is that our righteousness and salvation is of Gods free favour Hereto after a sort agree our adversaries but yet latet anguis Whether meerly of grace or mixtly of grace and merit Who so is conversant in their writings shall finde them so sharing the matter betwixt grace and merit that he would think the spirit of Pelagius to be revived in them He seeing how odious his barefaced heresie was teaching that a man without help of Gods grace might live without sin began to colour it with equivocating and in terms to joyn with orthodox teachers and to give place to the necessity of grace assisting in the fulfilling of the Law whereupon said Austin finding but the term of grace and mercy by cunning concession inserted by Pelagius Augustine de natur grat cap. 11. Laetitiâ repente perfusus sum quòd Dei gratiam non negaret per quam solam homo justificari potest But what was this grace of God admitted by Pelagians Nothing else but freewill which our nature receives from God without any precedent merits and the law or doctrine of God Augustin de Haeres Haer. 88. whereby we are taught what we should do and in doing hope for With like cunning deal our adversaries Justification and salvation they are of grace But what is grace the gift of charity in us How of grace because not without it but prinbipally and originally from it Let us enquire whether this can be the sense of the Apostle in ascribing the inheritance unto Gods grace or whether his purpose be only to make grace a sharer with our merits and not rather so to give all to grace that he excludes all debitum that may accrew to us in respect of our works See Annotat. ad cap. 3.24 Freely by grace that is meerly by grace and vers 27. So that all boasting in our selves may be excluded In a word See 1. Our state before calling it is such as wherein no merits except for the truth of the point merita mala as Austin terms them Augustin de grat lib Arbitr cap. 5. can have place whence is that of Paul so often repeated not of works of righteousness Tit. 3.5.2 Tim. 1.9 2. After calling works imperfect Rom. 7.3 The good that is in them meerly the work of Gods grace whence that of Austin Si donasunt bona merita tua non deus coronat merita tua tanquam merita tua sed tanquam dona sua Augustin de grat lib. Arbitr cap. 78. And again Si vita bona nostra nihil aliud est quam dei gratia Sine dubio vita aeterna quae bonae vitae redditur Dei gratia est ipsa enim gratis datur quia gratis data est illi cui datur The labour would be long and endless almost to
nature I would easily infer Pelagius his conclusion That by the power of nature it were possible to fulfill the Law But 1. The Hypothesis is improbable there being no true merits of any meer creature 2. Yield there were some works of some men perfect yet so will not the conclusion follow in respect of that frequent intervenience of sins destroying the value of other works saith Hilary truly Spes in misericordia Dei in seculum Hillar ennarr in Psal 51. in seculum seculi est Non enim ipsa illa justitiae opera sufficient ad perfectae Beatitudinis meritum nisi misericordia Dei etiam in hac justitiae voluntate humanarum demutationum motuum vitia non reputet Let us see their other limitation so that pride in such confidence be avoided There is then belike an humble kind of confidence in our own works as if we should say an humble pride There be some saith Bernard Bernard de Quadrages serm 5. that seek life eternal Non in humilitate sed tanquam in fiducia suorum meritorum In his opinion very confidence in our works is a shrewd spice of pride But let us see what that pride is that in such confidence they prescribe to be avoided It is this When a man thinks he hath his merits of himself not of Gods grace In case then a man thankfully acknowledge his good works to proceed from Gods grace it is lawfull to put confidence in them Hear Bernard Bern. in Annunciat Ser. 3. Si quis gratus est si quis devotus si quis solicitus si quis spiritu fervens caveat sibi nè suis fidat meritis nè suis operibus innitatur alioquin nec hujusmodi quidem animum intrat gratia I thank God saith the Pharisee I am not as others to Gods grace he ascribes his righteousness and yet returns emptie of justification To come briefly to the point our conclusion is this No confidence at all for righteousness or salvation ought to be placed in any our works be they never so good or seemingly perfect Our first reason is for that we find the most eminent amongst Gods Saints renouncing all their own works not onely naturall but gracious also and relying themselves onely on Gods mercy in Christ see Psal 143. Phil. 3.9 10. Dan. 9.18 We do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness but for thy great mercies Shall we say as they he speaks as one conceiving it as a matter of best safety Bellarm. de justif lib. 5. cap. 7. not of necessity What then means that so plentifull and humble confession of sins in the former part of the prayer In any reasonable construction he speaks as a man pressed with conscience of sin so far as that he acknowledgeth confusion to be their onely due portion if mercy succour and relieve him not To this we add these reasons weighty for the purpose howsoever sleightly passed over by Adversaries as 1. That our best works are defiled by our concupiscence Gal. 5.17 2. Are defective and imperfect according to the rule of the Law of God 3. Lose their worth through interruption and the frequent intercurrence of sins of ignorance and weakness would God not too often by some falls almost presumptuous Hereto we adjoyn the consent of Fathers August manual c. 22. Tota spes mea saith Augustine est in monte Domini mei mors ejus meritum meum refugium meum saelus vita resurrectio mea meritum meum miseratio Domini non sum meriti inops quamdiu ille miserationum Dominus non defuerit si misericordiae Domini multae multus ego sum in meritis Shall we say he remits of his right and speaks onely out of humility or as one choosing the sole mercie of God for his safest refuge Hear him in another place Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum August Confes l. 9. c. 13. si remotâ misericordiâ discutias eam Non est quod jam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cùm audies apud Prophetam Non propter vos Bern. in Cant. Ser. 67 68. sed propter me ego faciam dicit Dominus sufficit ad meritum scire quòd non sufficiant merita Idem Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas nolo meritum quod gratiam excludat Horreo quicquid de meo est ut sim meus c. The same Bernard noting the faults that sometimes insinuate themselves into our prayers Bern. de Quadrages Serm. 5. ad calcem in those that are made for eternall life pride sometimes useth to creep upon us Vitam aeternam fortassis aliqui non in humilitate quaerunt sed tanquam in fiducia suorum meritorum Nec hoc dico quin accepta gratia fiduciam donet orandi sed non oportet ut in ea constituat quisquam fiduciam impetrandi Hoc solum conferunt haec praemissa dona ut ab ea misericordia quae tribuit haec sperentur etiam ampliora Sit ergo oratio quae fit pro aeterna vita in omni humilitate praesumens de sola ut dignum est miseratione divina Propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae periculum amittendae aeternae gloriae tutissimum est Bellarm. qua supra fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia benignitate reponere Thus rather Propter imperfectionem propriae justitiae periculum amittendae aeternae gloriae necessarium est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia benignitate reponere Let us briefly view the reasons they alledge for their purpose They produce Nehemiah praying remembrance of his good deeds Neh. 13.22 Ezekias also alledging his sincerity Isa 38.3 David promising himself retribution because he had kept Gods wayes Psal 18.20 21. Many the like might have been heaped up but how follows the conclusion Therefore they put confidence in their works Nay see Nehemiah in the same place praying to be spared according to the greatness of Gods mercy think we he puts confidence in his works as true causes of salvation that prayes pardon of his imperfections Thus briefly let us conceive that the Saints of God alledging their righteousness in prayers respect not their works as matter of their confidence see Dan. 9.18 but as inferiour helps of their hope quatenus they are evidences of their being in the Covenant and partakers of the promises That they put confidence in is Gods mercy and truth in his promise the reason of that confidence is their obedience in respect of presence not of efficiency Take one inftance for many Neh. 1.8 the servant of God prayes for restoring the people out of captivity what layes he for ground of his prayer The word that he spake by Moses If they turn unto me I will gather them Now Lord saith Nehemiah we desire to fear thy Name therefore gather us Can any think the holy man alledgeth their fear of God as matter of confidence See how diminutively he
speaks of it it is rather a desire to fear then actuall fearing and therefore needs mercy to accept it hath no merit to procure so great a blessing from God August de verb. Apost Ser. 16. To like purpose Augustine In his quae jam habemus landemus Deum largitorem in his quae nondum habemus tenemus debitorem Debitor enim factus est non aliquid à nobis accipiendo sed quod ei placuit promittendo Illo ergò modo possumus exigere Dominum nostrum ut dicamus Redde quod promifisti quia fecimus quod jussisti hoc tu fecisti quia laborantes juvisti Their second argument because our works are vera salutis causa we may put confidence in any true cause which is known fit to bring us to the end wished and hoped for such are our works Ergo. To this argument the answers are divers amongst our Divines The Apologie of the Augustane confession seems not to deny that there is some virtue in the works of the faithfull procuring unto us eternall life But that virtue they imagine to be extrinsecall issuing from the merit of Christ imputed to us whereby it comes to pass that the blemishes of our obedience are covered and our works presented as pure and without spot before God And sundry others eminent in the Church of God think it no heresie to say that our good works tincta sanguine Christi make us worthy of eternal life In which and many the like speeches I must needs profesâ—e I see nothing derogatory to the glory of Gods grace or Christs Mediation nor worthy the tragicall exclamations of many if they be duely considered Our Sacrifices saith Peter are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ 1. Pet. 2.5 See Reynolds contra Hart. cap. 8. pure and clean saith Malachy though not by inherence yet by acceptation and by that tincture they receive from Christs bloud and intercession Rev. 8. But will it not hence follow that they are true causes of salvation Answ In no wise as Papists conceive it namely that ex propria dignitate and because they satisfie the Law of God such dignity we acknowledge none inherent in them nor such perfection as satisfies the Law The worth they have is from their die and tincture in Christs bloud and that is it alone that makes them capable of reward so that the term of our confidence is Christs bloud not our works into which the whole causality as I may term it of salvation in respect of us is to be resolved Others there are that choose simply and without distinction to deny the assumption least peradventure the proud heart of man should swell with opinion of its own conferring any thing to its own salvation They are via regni saith Bernard non causa regnandi Causes if ye will sine quibus non necessary antecedents to salvation no virtuall efficients or procurers thereof unto us most truly and fitliest to the Popish opinion according whereto they are made so exactly answerable to the justice of the Law that they need no mercy to cover their defects no imputation of Christs merits to hide their blemishes from Gods justice yea have a worth in them proportionall to the transcendent weight of glorie The Apostle otherwise Rom. 8.18 The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed Non si unus omnes sustineat saith Bernard Totis licèt animae Bern. de Annun Ser. 1. Euseb Emess Hom l. 3. ad Monach corporis laboribus desudemus totis licèt obedientiae viribus exerceamur nihil tamen condignum merito pro coelestibus bonis compensare offerre valebimus saith Eusebius Emissenus We conclude therefore That no confidence may be placed in our works of righteousness The whole must relie upon the mercy and truth of the promiser and on his Christ in whom the promises have their accomplishment 2. Cor. 1.20 And of the dutie and object thereof thus far His Periphrasis followeth Sense Who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead For the sense of the words It may be enquired how the resurrection of Christ is ascribed to the Father whereas it is said The Sonne hath power to lay down his life and to take it up again Joh. 2.19 and 10.18 Answ The answer rests in that old rule of Augustine The externall works of the Trinity are undivided in them all the whole three persons work joyntly in regard that the same divine virtue is equally residing in all If it be yet demanded why most usually the resurrection of Christ is assigned to the Father Answ Thus we may conceive that Christ in state of humiliation emptyed himself Phil. 2.7 Not as loving his glory but as forbearing for the time the ordinary manifestation of his Divine power inasmuch that howsoever there was no work of the father wherein he did not equally communicate quod ad substantiam operis yet so little shew thereof was there in the infirmity of his flesh that they might seem to be wholly from the father without any concurrence of Christ incarnate Again It may be demanded What the reason is that the Apostle singles out this effect of raising Christ from the dead to describe the father by Answ Some think to maintain the proportion betwixt the faith of Abraham and the faith of his seed that as he respected the power of God raising the dead in like sort should ours This is somewhat but if I be not deceived there is some farther aym of the Apostle he speaks methinks as if he thought there were some speciall reason and ground for confidence in God for justification in this act of God raising Jesus from the dead And weigh it well we shall finde there is scace any thing more fit to stablish faith in perswasion of justification then this For when the Lord losed the sorrowes of death and delivered our surety from bond age thereunto doth he not give evidence that his justice is fully satisfied for our sins he fully reconciled unto us Had not our surety Christ Jesus paid the utmost farthing due for our sins he had yet continued under the dominion of death the wages of our sins Hence saith Peter 1 Pet. 1.3 that the Lord hath begotten us to a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ from the dead there being no greater or more effectuall means to perswade us of pardon of sins reconciliation with God acceptation to life eternal then that Christ our surety and undertaker is risen from the dead There is a kinde of wisdome and prudence in believing the Apostle seems here to give us an hint for the nature and use of it thus conceives it It is when a man fits the consideration of the attributes and actions of God to the particulars most necessary and fit for faith to respect according to severall occasions as here The Apostle prescribing confidence in God for justification fits us with a description of him by
finde faith to have any such act or office as to apprehend and receive Christ and his righteousness Answ Amongst other places that is pregnant Rom. 5.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est oblatam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fidei videlicet manu Beza Where believers are deseribed to be such as receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness that receive to wit by faith as by a hand the gift of righteousness that is the righteousnes of Christ given unto us After this sentence we see how faith alone justifieth namely because faith only hath fitness to receive the gift of righteousness This laid also for a ground boasting is excluded in every respect which after all other explanations is left in some respect unto men Thus also is the comfort of conscience left provided for when Gods children shall be taught out of the word of God that the righteousness whereby they are justified before God is so absolute and every way perfect as is that of Christ and that it sufficeth them to justification that they receive it whether by strong or weak Faith the virtue of Righteousness being stil the same when it is received in what measure soever it be received As the alms given is of the same benefit whether the hand that receives it be steady or shaking so it be received The summe of all is this sith Faith is accepted to Justification neither in respect of the Worth of it to procure it nor yet as being the Form of righteousness nor as a Preparation nor as a Condition It remains that it justifieth Instrumentally onely or because it apprehends that for which we are justified namely the merit and Righteousness of Christ For Use of this point let it be this It affords Comfort to every weary soul groaning under the burthen of sinne and pressed with the Terrours of the Almighty and affrighted with the Curse of the Law due to Transgressions If thou believe in the Lord Jesus and hast received this grace by faith to receive his righteousness offered in the Gospel thy sins are forgiven and shall never be imputed to Condemnation Thou standest as just in Gods sight as if thou hadst in thine own person performed exactly the whole obedience that the Law requires And let no man say it is true if they could firmly believe as Abraham but their faith is so weak and wavering that even for it Condemnation is due them Answ For this Consider that it is not the strength of Faith that justifies not Faith as an Act wherein our Righteousness stands but it is that which Faith apprehends that justifies even the obedience and righteousness of Christ That apprehended truly in what measure soever covers all defects not onely of Legall obedience but even of Faith it self A second thing here observable is this That whereas to Abraham that had now long time been Regenerate and in state of grace had done many works of Piety and obedience Yet Faith is still counted to Righteousness it follows well that whole justification is absolved in Faith and that Faith is not onely the beginning of Righteousness but the very complement thereof And Bellarm. qua supra it is to be observed against that errour of Romanists that to evade the direct testimonies of Scripture against Justification by works and for that by Faith alone have devised a distinction of Justification It is say they Concil Trident Sess 6. of two sorts The First whereby a man of unjust is made just and that stands in two things 1. Remission of sins 2. Infusion of gracious habits whereby the heart of man is disposed and inclined to actuall justice The Second is that whereby a man of Righteous becomes more righteous encreasing the habits infused by exercise of them in doing good works The First of these is ascribed to Faith The Second to good works Now To omit that in this Doctrine they confound things to be distinguished namely Justification and Sanctification There is no ground for this distinction of justification in Scriptures nay grounds many against it For 1. If good works have this force to make us more justified in the sight of God how comes it to pass that Abrahams Iustification is still ascribed to faith For that the place Gen. 15.6 is to be understood de secunda justificatione Sasbout confesseth Sasbout ad locum Besides this the Apostle Phil. 3.9 apertly declares his whole justification both in his first Conversion Kemnit in Exam. in that time wherein he wrote yea at the day of Resurrection to be wholly and meerly absolved in Faith And surely if there were such virtue in the exercise of Good works as to make us more justified in the sight of God Saint Paul did fondly count so basely of them as to call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dung and loss Add hereunto that the Apostle 1 Cor. 4.4 speaking of the righteousness wherein he lived after his Conversion yet plainly disclaims opinion of justification thereby he was privy to himself of no insincerity in his calling having since his calling lived in all good conscience yet saith he I am not hereby justified What shall we say he speaks of his first justification as if it could possibly be thought that the works not yet extant could be the means of that justification which he had before he had works More I adde not We will now proceed to that which followeth VERS 4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt The applying of these verses to the Apostles purpose see in the Analysis Sense To him that worketh That is say some that presumes of his works others that deservs by his works Thus rather To him that hath or brings works to God The wages or reward What is the wages here mentioned Paraeus Some take the Apostle to reason out of a principle in Civil life by similtude applyed to this purpose but the Antithesis bears it not Wages here understand Synecdechicè put for estimation of righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is say some is not imputed but the Catachresis is too hard and abhorrent from all custome of speech Cajetan Is notreckoned that is not paid saith Cajetan What if we say the speech is borrowed from the custome of Common life on this manner That the Lord should be imagined after the manner of men to keep his book of accounts wherein the records both the behaviours of men and the wages due unto them according to the same It s not much unlike that we fiud Mal. 3.16 Let us for the purpose imagine the Lord the great distributor of reward according to the double covenant of works and grace to have referred all men to two ranks viz. Workers and Believers to resolve with himself to crown both with a sentence of righteousness according as they bring to him either works such as the Law prescribes or